Trackbacks & Pings

1. Feminism and Orientalism « The Bead Shop on 01 Aug 2008 at 5:12 am

   [...] Feminism and Orientalism August 1, 2008 at 10:12 am | In media, theory | Tags: media, theory There is a fantastic article by Dr Priyamvada Gopal on Comment is Free today. (hat tip to Racialicious). [...]

2. Orientalism and feminism pt 2 « The Bead Shop on 03 Aug 2008 at 11:07 am

   [...] Dr Priyamvada Gopal’s Comment Is Free post on the Black Issue of Italian Vogue. Following the discussion of the article going on at Racialicious, I want to talk some more about this, because I think Dr Gopal makes points that are often sorely [...]

Comments

1. Fatemeh wrote:

   Great. Points.
   Although models/the fashion industry is a huge pot of issues, I do believe more models of color can help us “normalize” standards of beauty that aren’t white or thin. So on one hand, I think it’s important for models of color to take a greater share of representation.

   But Gopal’s point goes much further than that, and it’s important to realize that the (white) fashion industry would be literally nothing without the work that it had done for centuries on the backs of non-white women. Fashion can’t progress beyond whiteness without realizing and owning up to this.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶

2. intheUniverse wrote:

   I do think that it is about time that we start to study/examine what exactly “whiteness” is. Everyone/everything else has been put under the microscope except IT. I have noticed a few blogs dealing with the topic of “whiteness” which I think is great. I hope to see more here as well. To me, I feel like until we deal with ITs impact we will not be able to resolve much of anything else. IMO, it is the common denominator for so many issues. It truly is the elephant in the room. It strength/pervasiveness I believe has come from that fact that we have historically not labeled IT for what it is.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 1:39 pm ¶

3. Tiffany wrote:

   @fatemeh
   “and it’s important to realize that the (white) fashion industry would be literally nothing without the work that it had done for centuries on the backs of non-white women.”

   Good point!!!

   Everything that white people have done , was done on the backs of non white people. They day when white people can do something for themseleves without having to exploit or use another person, then I would have much more respect them.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶

4. Cynthia wrote:

   Fatemeh said: “Although models/the fashion industry is a huge pot of issues, I do believe more models of color can help us “normalize” standards of beauty that aren’t white or thin.”

   Make that white or thin OR TALL. Petite sizes rarely get any media attention, and yes, petite designers who use shorter models DO EXIST. As for non-white beauty: Ever notice that while black models seem to have a more “European” appearance, Asian models, with the exception of those in advertising, almost always have really exaggerated “Asian” looks (really “squinty” eyes, really straight, black hair, porcelain skin. The only thing non-Asian about them is that they’re usually just as tall as non-Asian models).

   Also, I’m wondering if what some people here call “non-white” issues are really class-based, especially those related to feminism. Issues that my relatives in Hong Kong have really aren’t that different than middle class, white women in the west, especially if it’s career-related.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶

5. JT wrote:

   well said… I wish others would be able to recognize how we are all constantly bombarded with this message.

   Simultaneously, here in the US we have made “Whiteness” our default setting all while, not really explaining- or picking apart what that even means.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶

6. Nadra wrote:

   Cynthia, what do you mean when you say that the black models have “white” features? I hear this being said over and over again, and I find it a problematic statement. I looked through the black Vogue Italia issue, and I would not say that any of the models have “white” features. Some have East African features; some have West African features. One model even looks like she might be part Asian to me. The models span a range of skin tones and hair textures. How do they look white? My issue is that when we say that black people look white, we are denying the breadth of features found throughout the African continent. Moreover, I find it disturbing that whenever a black woman is considered to be attractive she is said to look white or somehow compared to a white woman. Recently I saw the lovely and dark-skinned Gabrielle Union called a black Barbie doll. The message this sends to me is that a black woman can’t be beautiful and black, she must be a black who “looks white,” ruling out the possibility that blackness can co-exist with beauty.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:34 pm ¶

7. Prometheus wrote:

   The concept that there is a universal “Whiteness” leans into the direction that there is something that is inherently connective about being “Black” as well. I think it would be incredibly damaging to suggest that just because the color of one’s skin that there must be a universal realm of experience. The question I really have is, why is it so hard to both hold on to your heritage and ethnic history, and not allow that to dictate your future experiences?

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:37 pm ¶

8. Celeste wrote:

   @Nadra: I think what Cynthia means is that most of the black faces you see in fashion, reguardless of hue are going to echo the more Europena ideal of beauty. I am well aware of the varied phenotypes of African women but the tendency to prefer African women with keener features does very little for black women who have broader noses or lips fuller than Angelina Jolie. Especially if you view the situation from a U.S. (I know this Italian vogue) I would venture that most women who identify as black here do not have East African features. I don’t speak from experience because I have keener features but I’d imagine that it’s not too uplifting to encounter black images of beauty that consistently cater to the type of black beauty that is most acceptable to whites.
   It was/is always the West African features that were degraded and exaggerated in racist imagery, not East African ones.
   I would think the best way to correct this perception would be to really emphasize the beauty that’s been the most unappreciated historically.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶

9. Celeste wrote:

   Also, the Gabrielle Union “Barbie doll” accusation could be carryover from the whole white husband, very fair-skinned children thing. Your choice of spouse does seen to weigh heavily into your black credit score.

   Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶

10. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Celeste – Gabrielle Union is unmarried. You are thinking of Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶

11. Celeste wrote:

    Oooooh yeah. You’re right. Then that I don’t have a good explanation for. I’d have to know more about the context.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶

12. Fiqah wrote:

    This was awesome. One of my undergrad independent projects focused on the construction (social and legal) of “Whiteness” in this country. I found during my research that most critical race theorists agree that the insistence of normative Whiteness arises from a fear of marginalization. It makes sense: “White,” like every hegemonic category, defines itself by stating – emphatically, passionately and repeatedly – what it is NOT (i.e., “Black”, “Red”, “Brown”). Color in these cases becomes a necessary backdrop -what better way to reaffirm the value of Whiteness than by pointing out how not White something or someone is? Take the backdrop of the raced cultural Other away, and the “Whiteness” being highlighted fades into irrelevance.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:40 pm ¶

13. lunanoire wrote:

    Cynthia,

    I agree to a certain extent, but view it more broadly. It seems that the 2 main options for POC models are 1. “super” exotic w/ exaggerated features, as you mentioned or 2. appear to be part white.

    E. Asian model w/ geisha- influenced makeup and exaggerated features vs. hapa model in Inuit gear if she’s pale, Hawaiian dress if she’s dark
    Dark African woman w/ broad features and 1 mm hair vs. Mixed woman w/ narrower features, long hair, and lighter skin/hair/eyes
    Dark mestiza Latinas in a folkloric/salsa/etc. spread vs. Fair Latina who can get jobs that white models get (Giselle, etc.)
    Dark Desi woman in a sari vs. Ms Rai advertising mascara to complement her blue/green eyes

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:41 pm ¶

14. Chairo wrote:

    Look at the comments in response to the article on the Guardian’s website

    I think thats sums up how far england has come to dealing with racial issues

    there’s this arrogant and irreverent attitude that i’ve seen time and time again.

    when members of the racist British National Party say “england is a country for the white race” and things along these lines, “Polite society” will express outrage and convey their condemnation; this doesn’t mean they disagree with the core idea – nothing is sensibly telling them to think otherwise

    Nadra: “Cynthia, what do you mean when you say that the black models have “white” features? I hear this being said over and over again, and I find it a problematic statement. I looked through the black Vogue Italia issue, and I would not say that any of the models have “white” features. Some have East African features; some have West African features.”

    Exactly

    Not every African is as dark as Alex wek

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:43 pm ¶

15. Marge Twain wrote:

    On a lighter note: I am totally going to steal Naomi’s eye makeup

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 6:08 pm ¶

16. Numa wrote:

    Reading through those comments at the Guardian website was quite upsetting! Part of me is outraged because the Guardian is meant to be for liberal readers and if that’s the sort of comments you get from the “enlightened” part of society, then we’re fucked! The other part of me questions my outrage and I’m left wondering whether I’m overreacting for agreeing with the original article?

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 6:23 pm ¶

17. TierList E wrote:

    I don’t think Cynthia is trying to box the way a black woman should look- I think she’s saying that according to white beauty norms a situation where there’s a black woman A and black woman B, in which A overall has *more* easily comparable features to white beauty standards than B, woman A will most likely be held in mainstream esteem as “the hot black woman”. Where those traits actually came from (and how “white” they really are) is irrelevent- they hit the “real deal” closely enough so basic beauty standards to not have to change.

    Or maybe you can say the less features you have that stereotypically points you out as a woman of W. African descent. You lose “mainstream hot points” for every one of those you have. You can have *some* as long as you have other traits to mitigate them.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶

18. cac forgenie wrote:

    Gopal is right when she writes “For although the melanin quotient has been dramatically upped (more than one non-white face in a fashion magazine is, true enough, a major change), glossy homogenisation is still the order of the day. Black models? Sure. But there’s not a “natural” or “kinky” in sight, indeed, barely even a mop of curly hair. This is black girls-as-white girls: all aquiline noses, large eyes, oval faces (bar the standard exception of “unusual” Alek Wek), hair coaxed into silky straightness or carefully turbaned away in shot after shot. As for “black”, it’s more latte than americano.”
    Further, (it may just be me) I think its disturbing that the models are referred to as black faces. Its like, OK: we’re gonna get some black girls who look like they were white girls dipped in chocolate (or whatever) and present them as representations of black women!

    Am I tripping? Is this some sort of weird cognitive dissonance Joy Leary wrote about? Is this Italian Vogue thing a result of Post Slavery Syndrome? Cuz it seems pretty obvious to me that IV’s holding up a mirror dipped in chocolate…. Am I stretching?

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 9:28 pm ¶

19. Jane wrote:

    The UK is a very homogenous country (93% White), as are all other European countries. Therefore, it is only natural for the magazines to reflect this fact.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 10:20 pm ¶

20. emmanuelgoldstein wrote:

    yes, the comments on the Guardian are a disaster; but then, that’s true of almost every race thingy on the Guardian. (I actually think these ones are a tadless bad than some I’ve seen before.) Priya is brave to say what she did.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 10:28 pm ¶

21. Andrew wrote:

    I never understood why Italy was chosen for Vogue Black for many reasons.

    First of all, Italy was never a colonial power (except for occupying Lybia); it certainly is a bad choice. However, Italy has recently compensated Lybia for colonizing it. As well, Italy was colonized itself by Muslim armies.

    Second of all, its total African population is 0.36% and its total minority population is 3.02%.

    Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 10:30 pm ¶

22. macon d wrote:

    A friend gave me a copy of the American Vogue’s July issue because it has an article that she thought would interest me: “Is Fashion Racist?” Before reading the article, I flipped through the the issue’s images, to see if Vogue itself is racist.

    The article itself is full of shots of POC models–and no white ones. Because, you know, whites don’t have a race, right? You know this is true, because when whites talk about race, they’re always talking about other people, “those” people who do have a race. (end sarcasm)

    That “racism” article is not referenced on the cover, and it appears far back in the magazine, on page 134. Prior to that page, there must be 100 or so posed, airbrushed, etc. shots of women models. Only ONE looks something other than white. She’s a black woman, in a full-page ad for–Aqua Fresh White Trays! The ad’s copy reads, “Revive Your Whitening.” (”Revive” it? As if!)

    So Vogue timidly asks, in article buried deep in the back of this issue, “Is Fashion Racist?” Of course it is, and Vogue is clearly a perfect example. But of course, it’s more than that. Why not call this overwhelming usage of a white(ned) beauty standard what it is–”white supremacist”?

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 6:35 am ¶

23. doloresUK wrote:

    I agree with Numa is regards to the comments posted on the Guardian website. I see this type of attitude always surfaces when issues of race is discuss. There is a high level of ignorance and arraogant displayed along the white liberal classes who think that ‘i don’t say racist things therefore I’m not racist’ although alot of racism is still lurking underneath the surface and they refuse to discuss or talk about but it comes out in their actions, their social intercations with people of colour. The UK has not yet to come to terms with a mutli-racial society whereas the US is far more in front in terms of diversity and embracing different nationalites in their media. The whole idea of british idenity is so tied up to race and the old idea of empire. As a black person in the UK you still get the sense that if you’re not white you not really english or you don’t belong.

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 7:54 am ¶

24. Brian wrote:

    Maybe CNN should do a “White in American” special. It’d be particularly great if it looked something like this: https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 8:04 am ¶

25. WestEndGirl wrote:

    Re: Vogue and the post by Priyamvada, which talks largely from a UK perspective. And I beg your forbearance with my long preamble, it is the context to my views.

    Here in the UK, we have just under 10% POC: from Afr0-Caribbean to Subcontiental Asian. So the UK is overwhelmingly ‘white’ (for white read, random mix of Angles, Jutes, Celts, Saxons, Hugenots and numerous other diverse groups).

    I live in London and grew up in an amazingly diverse neighbourhood and until I was a teen and went to regional secondary school I didn’t even realise that the UK was so remarkably overwhelmingly ‘white’.

    In my school the Crayola crayons did come in a variety of colours for people to draw themselves, every major religious and cultural festival and traditions were marked and/or celebrated, we did study the Empire from a critical perspective etc. In the nativity play, you had a scenario where I (a mixed Jewish girl) played Mary and Joseph was a Turkish Cypriot Muslim and the most fancied girls in the school were Mina Patel and Carolyn Solomon (girls of Punjabi and West Indian origin).

    However, for all this, my experience is the minority experience. The UK *is* overwhelmingly ‘white’ and was even more so until about 10 years ago, when POC made up less than 5% of the population.

    So to me, it is not surprising that the dominant narrative in general interest magazines and newspapers is ‘white’. In fact, I would go as far to say that POC are overrepresented in our media compared to their proportion of the population (please NB, that I do not think is a bad thing, quite the opposite) mainly because most media is produced from the big urban centres of London, Manchester etc where POC make up say 30-40% of the population.

    I want the UK’s diverse communities to be represented and honoured, I want and expect to see the people I meet, live and work with in the media. And as much as I despise the fashion industry, I want and expect to see models of all backgrounds represented if that’s what they want to do.

    But – and this is a huge but – I still feel very uncomfortable with the idea of forcing such an overwhelmingly ‘white’ country to have an *artificial* representation of POC in the media. Successful, beautiful, inspiring, dynamic and interesting people should be featured regardless of their ethnic, racial or cultural background not because of it, except where relevant.

    I just hate the tokenism of this in such an overwhelmingly white country, whereas it is most obviously not tokenism in the US where such a large proportion of the population are POC but are mysteriously missing from the dominant cultural narrative!

    So in the end, whilst understanding and respecting where Priyamvada is coming from, I don’t come up with a conclusion or agreement with her, I end with questions for you all:

    In a country which is overwhelmingly ‘white’ (up to 99%) in parts of the country with only a few big pockets of diversity – why shouldn’t ‘whiteness’ be the dominant narrative, not because ‘whiteness’ is better, but is just the reality of the situation?

    And if we expect the UK to dissolve its dominant narrative of ‘whiteness’ in this way, would we expect Nigeria to do the same with its overwhelmingly dominant narrative etc ?

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 9:07 am ¶

26. gatamala wrote:

    Marge Twain wrote:

    On a lighter note: I am totally going to steal Naomi’s eye makeup

    I used to love her in Rifat Ozbek (showing my age)

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

27. Andrew wrote:

    Wow well-said WestEndGirl!!

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 11:23 am ¶

28. Lakergrrl wrote:

    Actually that is what I think was cool about the issue is that the Editors at the Italian Vogue wanted to do this. They didn’t have to. Nobody was complaining (as far as I know) about lack of black womens representation in a European Vogue, only the American version. So for the Italian one to step up is a very big deal, not to mention kind of embarassing for Anna W et al. So while I can understand why people in the UK are a lil confused about all the fuss, the ones here in the U.S. basically understand it was the American version that was originally in question.

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶

29. Lakergrrl wrote:

    Plus if I remember correctly there is kind of a beef between Anna Wintour and the Italian Vogue Ed in chief due to the Italian version being seen as higher in artistic qualityand less commercial.

    P.S.
    I’m just pyched to see my girl Tocarra in a Vogue reppin for the curvy girls!!!

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶

30. browne wrote:

    “I never understood why Italy was chosen for Vogue Black for many reasons.” Andrew

    I know why, because there are few black people there, so it’s less political. It’s easy to be tolerant in theory.

    It’s fantasy and fun and “exotic”.

    Models are viewed as dolls: blow up dolls, dress up dolls, dolls to put on the shelf and look at.

    That’s why models regardless of race white, black, asian, latina, or a combination of any ethnicity are never going to look real and will always be extremely something, because they aren’t supposed to be real.

    What’s the point of having a real person, with regular clothes, how are you going to sell ads?

    Just looking from the economic perspective.

    Browne

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶

31. Lakergrrl wrote:

    Italy wasn’t “chosen”. Franca Sozzani, the Vogue Italia EIC, chose to do it cause she as says “nobody is using black girls. I see so many beautiful girls and they were complaining that they are not used enough.”

    She has this to say about Italians that have a problem with the issue “Maybe in our country it is not the best idea. But I don’t care. I think it is not my problem if they don’t like it – it’s their problem.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/black-is-finally-in-fashion-at-vogue-816213.html

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶

32. Kaonashi wrote:

    Vogue Italia is in general a hell of a lot better than Vogue Americana can ever be. Not to mention this is the best “fuck you” that Franca could have EVER given Anna Wintour; the July issue is actually going BACK to press to print an additional run of the “Black Issue” because the original run has sold out in most places and people are getting quite irate that they can’t get their hands on it. This is something that has never happened before in the history of Vogue magazine.

    They disappeared in Chicago the same day they arrived here. I even went to the airport thinking that no one would think of going there to get a copy only to find out that I was a day late and a dollar short. :/ All gone.

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 9:33 pm ¶

33. Chairo wrote:

    @west end girl

    It sounds like you and I have had a very similar experience of the UK.

    I’m a POC who has lived in London most of my life, but for a couple of years I lived in cornwall, where I experienced my only real taste of serious white racism. I’ve seen others play devil’s advocate in this discussion and I do find it rather frustrating; even for a moment appearing to agree with some of these people makes you seem acquiescent in the face of really tribalistic racism; by saying “well england is mostly white anyway” is tantamount to saying england is a white country always has been always will be. Let us not forget that the racial classification of “white” is an imperial and colonial construct used to make “pocs” differentiated from so called “whites”. Before “white” many who would come after the germanic tribes (jutes, saxons, angles) faced terrible discrimination, especially the jews and the irish.

    You think that you’re average white Englishman knows that the St george of our St george’s flag was actually Turkish?

    The only real “over-representation” (i’m totally against idea of doing things by numbers) one could really note is in news presenting
    with shows like Hollyoaks there’s a single raceless Asian, and raceless mixed race people who are seldom in it, who’ll be referred to by audiences as black

    Shows like Skins had token minorities for the most part. Outside of that we pretty much don’t exist. I hear this REALLy annoying assertion from white folks outside London, that our media is too heavily London-centric, which is code-speak for “we’re uncomfortable seeing George Alagiah presenting our news all the time”
    Near enough everything on our tv is safe and targeted at white middle england audiences.

    The (”new”) minority experience of England is seldom ever represented,
    When I say new i’m referring to the 20 century emergence of blacks and Asians in the 50’s and 60’s, to the arrival of Eastern european folk nowadays. During the 19th century and i think even earlier you had black faces on our shores, but these experiences will seldom be represented.

    I think a good way to look at British Racism and how we’ve always been is places like my secondary school. Caribbean descendants of people who came here during the 60’s who’ve been assimilated
    associated a lot with the white kids coalesced heavily in my school and in places like Stratford and Leyton you’ve got a very visible amount of mixed kids and interracial coupling. Pubs in my area which were profoundly white when I arrived in my neighbourhood 6 years ago, are now very evenly mixed.

    However in spite of all this during my time at Secondary school, blacks and whites hadn’t transcended racism. Together they’d be really racist to Eastern Europeans kids or Africans who couldn’t speak english well and or didnt have the best clothes or trainers. An insult you got a lot was “immigrant”
    which sounds almost comically given the laziness of it, but it really did work .
    The africans tended to get assimialed a lot easier as they often knew more english but spoke with an accent that was ridiculed.

    Another thing that should be noted in this, is the fact that Vogue isn’t just any magazine
    And the woman in the guardian was discussing Italian Vogue, so the commenters on that site are idiotic for saying some of the stuff they were saying.

    i need sleep lol peace.

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 11:07 pm ¶

34. Chairo wrote:

    @west end girl

    Just to add,

    the experience you described of playing Mary, and those girls who were fancied, have you seen anything like that represented in the way you lived it?

    Because I know exactly what you’re describing. The most desired girls in the year above me in school were Indian and Black, and the Alpha males were certainly not white.

    There’s no excuse for minorities to get ignored when London gets depicted, but these experiences do get ignored in favour of east enders lol

    Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 11:19 pm ¶

35. doloresUK wrote:

    If people are unaware of the important of black beauty been shown in the mainstream media. I would advise people to watch the recent BBC Three documentary about ‘Airbrushing’ in magazines where a 6 year of mixed-race girl said she didn’t want to be brown!! This was truly heartbreaking and made me think UK has a serious problem with reflecting the beauty and complexity of black people.
    It has been reported many times that the TV, film and fashion industries woefully under represent black people, baring in mind most of these institutions are based in London and ethnic minorities make-up 20-25% of the population. I’m not one for tokenism either but there a urgent need for a fair and balance media not just a white-middle class elite.

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶

36. Brundle wrote:

    @westendgirl
    the problem is that most media depicts a white world, whether it’s british media, u.s. media, european, canadian, or australian. the bigger problem is that u.s. and british media is broadcast and published globally. the ideals, then–whiteness in its various forms–are also globally broadcast and published.
    do you think the broadcaster and publishers don’t know that their products have an international, sometimes global, audience? of course they do. they make more money when they can sell all over the planet. as such, wouldn’t it make sense (since globally, white people are the _real_ minority) to depict a majority of people of colour in the pages of fashion magazines? because on a global, international, _planetary_ level, there is a slim margin of white people.
    but the american show, “friends” airs in a whole bunch of countries, all over the world and there is, i think, _one_ black person on that show. this is true for almost all shows in the u.s. and, from your comment, westendgirl, it seems the same is true for the u.k.
    your argument does not hold water. colonial dominance and imperialism have stripped most countries around the globe of just about all of their natural resources and indigenous wealth. these countries have been robbed blind, their people raped, tortured, denigrated, and that wealth has then been used to set up massive publishing and media enterprises in european and north american countries. these enterprises now get to set the standard for what is beautiful and “normal” and attractive — further propagating a colonialist agenda. only this time far more efficiently.

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶

37. Whitney wrote:

    I just bought it….. gorgeous. Definitely worth the $16. Maybe now Anna Wintour will get a hint and start using models that her readers want to see.

    I saw this comment:

    “But there’s not a “natural” or “kinky” in sight, indeed, barely even a mop of curly hair.”

    <>

    I have to say, I agree. I mean, with the amount of make-up and airbrushing…. wow. They even make models look thinner with Photoshop. So i think it’s kind of silly to expect only women of color to look “natural” when no model looks natural.

    As I was reading through the rest of the comments, a lot of anti-white sentiments were present, which I find ironic, because they were said in conjunction with saying how racism was bad, and blah blah blah.

    I should not be faulted because of my skin color. I should not be faulted because of things my ancestors may or may not have done. I should not be faulted for things other white people do. I am not responsible for the things said and done by other white people simply because of my skin color.

    Yes, there is “white privilege” in our world, but that is of no fault of my own, and I should not be treated poorly because of it, because of what color my skin is. Isn’t that what anti-racism is striving for, not treating people a certain way because of the color of their skin?

    Anyways, I’m glad that there’s a lot more respect on this blog, and I have to say, some of those comments on the article saddened me.

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶

38. Sewere wrote:

    Brundle

    You. Me. Here.

    I grew up in the ’70s to early ’90s (still shaking grown ass fist at Latoya) in Nigeria. I grew up watching Sesame Street, The Learning Tree, Different Strokes, Atom Ant Show, Battlestar Galactica etc All of which were shows from the U.S. and the U.K. Even with the booming Nigerian Film Industry (forget the annoying 3hr plotless films) you have to note that the majority of actors are lighter in complexion. Despite Nollywood, this the vast majority of people have cable and satellite and watch shows that are mostly from the US.

    So WestEndGirl, as much as I appreciate the comparison you’re trying to make it really isn’t historically or contextually comparable, given, as Brundle said the impact of colonialism and post-colonial imperialism. So no it’s tokenism, if people of color have more representation, it is the reality of the world we live in.

    Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 4:07 pm ¶

39. bdsista wrote:

    I had to get my copy on ebay and I hope it does make Anna Wintour wake the hell up. Maybe she will listen to Andre Leon Talley. Now will this up Essence’s subscription rates? I mean, you can have WOC year round reading Essence.

    Posted 03 Aug 2008 at 2:03 am ¶

40. Zenobia wrote:

    Although models/the fashion industry is a huge pot of issues, I do believe more models of color can help us “normalize” standards of beauty that aren’t white or thin. So on one hand, I think it’s important for models of color to take a greater share of representation.

    But Gopal’s point goes much further than that, and it’s important to realize that the (white) fashion industry would be literally nothing without the work that it had done for centuries on the backs of non-white women. Fashion can’t progress beyond whiteness without realizing and owning up to this.

    Absolutely, I think Gopal’s point does go much, much further than that. I think this discussion shouldn’t be so much about proportion of representation, and more about the nature of the fashion industry itself: on the one hand, the fact that it’s a very colonial industry, in that it relies on the labour of people of colour – and we are supposed to be aware of this, that a lot of the fabrics used are ‘exotic’ in origin, that they have been traditionally woven since times immemorial by smiling brown people wearing bright colours. Of course, the actual workers are mostly invisible in all of this, but considering the history of colonialism, things have always had value in the West based on how many armies of underlings had to put effort into producing and procuring them.

    And then there’s the kind of colonialist symbolism in the fashion industry which reflects all of this, where expensive-looking models wear these clothes, the idea of decadence which relies, not only on one person lying around in really expensive clothes, but on lots and lots of people milling around so that the one person can be decadent. The whole idea of fashion is centred around a narrative of dominance and conquest, Gopal is seeing it through the lens of Edward W. Said’s Orientalism, and through a post-colonial lens.

    Showcasing a few black models in turbans and fine silks has nothing to do with egalitarianism or diversity (a problematic concept in itself) and everything to do with adding yet another degree of orientalism to the whole thing.

    Gopal mentions that it would be much more interesting to have a white issue, and I agree. As someone said here, and as Gopal would doubtless agree, the whole concept of whiteness is based on ‘absence of colour’, of having default people who don’t have a race. It’s based on the idea that there’s an innate oriental essence similar to the feminine essence decried by feminists, and that white people are unaffected by it.

    In every Vogue-type fashion shoot, whatever the contents or the race of the model, there’s a whole history and cross-section of colonial and post-colonial oppression, and we need to be questioning that before we start thinking about whether we want to applaud the range of models represented in a fashion magazine. Besides, you know, sometimes they only do it so they can appropriate and define the model’s ethnic origin, appearance, or whatever. In this, they have defined what gets to be regarded as both ‘black’ and ‘beautiful’. Even if it did involve afro hairstyles, or Masai and Pigmy models, rather than just dipping Kate Moss in some tea, the fashion industry would remain harmful and exploitative.

    Posted 03 Aug 2008 at 8:41 am ¶

41. Fiqah wrote:

    Will someone please explain White privilege and institutional racism to Whitney? I can’t today.

    Posted 03 Aug 2008 at 11:24 am ¶

42. Whitney wrote:

    I just don’t think it’s acceptable to hold me accountable for what other white people say and do simply because I am white. I also shouldn’t be held accountable for what my white ancestors may or may not have done.

    White people have done a lot of horrible things in the past, and still do bad things.

    But to use the all-inclusive phrase of “white people” seems problematic to me.

    And if we keep playing the “blame game” nothing is going to change or progress.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 1:53 am ¶

43. Zenobia wrote:

    As I was reading through the rest of the comments, a lot of anti-white sentiments were present, which I find ironic, because they were said in conjunction with saying how racism was bad, and blah blah blah.

    I should not be faulted because of my skin color. I should not be faulted because of things my ancestors may or may not have done. I should not be faulted for things other white people do. I am not responsible for the things said and done by other white people simply because of my skin color.

    Yes, there is “white privilege” in our world, but that is of no fault of my own, and I should not be treated poorly because of it, because of what color my skin is. Isn’t that what anti-racism is striving for, not treating people a certain way because of the color of their skin?

    Er, I’ll just get my violin, and then you can explain how you’re being ‘faulted’, exactly.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 3:42 am ¶

44. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Whitney –

    Check the comment moderation policy before you post again. You are seriously treading on some well worn ground.

    http://www.racialicious.com/comment-moderation-policy/

    #10 in particular. This blog is from a PoC perspective. Whites are not centered here. What you are interpreting as an attack is an honest discussion about how race functions under a white supremacist system. If this bothers you, you should go visit these blogs first:

    http://www.timwise.org/

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/

    http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/

    These bloggers speak from a white perspective – you may find that easier to comprehend and deal with.

    But this site is a PoC space. Complaining about how bad white people have it and how unfair it is to be subject to labels will not get you far.

    Also, read this post on resist racism:

    http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/why-i-hate-white-anti-racists/

    And pay particular attention to the comments. Noteably, why the blog regulars no longer want to hear it.

    Then go here:

    http://resistracism.wordpress.com/racism-101/

    And think on it for a while.

    If you have questions, email me.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 6:27 am ¶

45. Zenobia wrote:

    Just to be clear since this is a POC space – and this might be of interest to Whitney also – I’m writing from the point of view of a white person.

    Whitney – I probably have no call to be snarky. I just find it a bit, well, too easy to condemn discussions of racism, which by their very nature entail discussing white supremacy, by saying that it’s racist to even discuss it, or to acknowledge the existence of racism at all.

    Whether or not you or me are being held to be less than perfect isn’t really relevant to the discussion. We need to start caring independently of whether we’re being ‘faulted’ or not.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 8:03 am ¶

46. Whitney wrote:

    I wasn’t talking about this blog, I was talking about the comments from the article itself, on the Guardian’s website.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶

47. Whitney wrote:

    And thanks for the links, Latoya, I’ll be emailing you, I don’t want to derail the thread even more.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

48. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Whitney – Looking forward to it.

    Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

49. Keya wrote:

    I enjoyed reading everyone of your comments. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in an adult and informative manner…K

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 1:29 am ¶